Posted here Friday, June 04, 2004 at 10:14:28 AM 
And in the curent issue of the NYRB
Unfit to Print?
By Michael Massing
On May 26, The New York Times published a lengthy editors' note belatedly acknowledging that the paper's pre-war coverage "was not as rigorous as it should have been." According to the note, accounts of Iraqi defectors were not analyzed with sufficient skepticism, and "articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display" while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question "were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all." The Times deserves credit for running a detailed mea culpa. Yet the note seems less than forthright.
The low key tone of the NYT apology makes it feel like their pre-war Iraq coverage was about something rather more trivial. thre is no sense of blood, or damaged US reputation.
********
|
|
